US Fish and Wildlife rules against Geocaching

April 17, 2003

Late yesterday afternoon, in the state of Ohio, the US Fish and Wildlife Dept ruled that Geocaching is not compatible with it's mandates, and therefore disallowed on any of it's lands. Ideas on what we should do go here...

1.6k · April 17, 2003

There's no mention of geocaching on the fws.gov site. You have a link to this ruling?

CR

April 17, 2003

Ok, I won't leave any caches on/in any fish or wildlife in Ohio.

Bummer. I was gonna do the "Roaming Bear Cache" next weekend, too.

--

Random fortune:

sigimage.php

April 17, 2003

LMAO Cruzin, I was thinking of the same thing. What they don't know won't hurt them...

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

38.2k · April 17, 2003

Talk to someone. It seems that for every jurisdiction that embraces geocaching, two decide that it's "not compatible". Minds can be changed if you have a good spokesperson and open minded land managers. One geocacher (was it Elias or Erik?) is compiling geocache friendly regulations

from various authorities. I've been trying to compile a list of authorities who have positive things to say about our sport.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 17, 2003

OK people, here's the long and the short of it. The US Fish & Wildlife Dept has ruled that Geocaching is not compatible with it's version of Wildlife Reclamation. Therefore, no Geocaching is allowed on ANY of it's land, or any lands that it funds! I am a member of the Steering Committee of the Michigan Geocaching Organization. I have been interfacing with the DNR of my state, for a few months, to have the DNR give Geocaching it's official approval. The DNR of this state (and many others) gets its funding from the US Fish & Wildlife Dept. Therefore, Geocaching is now ILLEGAL on any DNR managed land! So we have just lost in excess of 4 million acres of land! That is just in the state of Michigan. How many acres has your state just lost? This is no laughing matter, as now it is a federal issue. Geocaching already lost the National Park Service, but this ruling has the very real possibility of hurting our sport far more. I don't yet have a link on this ruling, but it was a member of the DNR here in Michigan that called to inform me of this today.

1.4k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sandrich:
<<SNIP>>

I am a member of the Steering Committee of the Michigan Geocaching Organization. I have been interfacing with the DNR of my state, for a few months, to have the DNR give Geocaching it's official approval.

<<SNIP>>

So you have successfully helped steer geocaching out of DNR land?

Good job

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:
So you have successfully helped steer geocaching out of DNR land?

Good job

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Nope. We have been building a good working relationship with the DNR here! This decision was out of thier hands. We anticipate continuing a good working relationship with the DNR.

But tell me Harrold, what have you personally done to get involved to further our sport?

April 17, 2003

I need more details. What is the source of your information? Is the US F&W just concerned with its wildlife reclamation lands, or all of the land that they may have anything to do with? You started by talking about Ohio, but you're in Michigan. What connections do you have with ODNR, and what do they say about this ruling? How do you know that your source at MDNR didn't misunderstand something?

We need something official from US F&W or all this may just be needless panic.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

1.3k · April 17, 2003

I wonder how many registered geocachers there really are? What if the entire geocaching community were to petition them en masse? We could set up an event cache page, and everyone could log a find for their vote. Let's see how many "signitures" we would have.

"Searching with my good eye closed"

38.2k · April 17, 2003

This appears to be a problem. I'd have to inform myself before making further comment.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 17, 2003

quote:
How do you know that your source at MDNR didn't misunderstand something?
We need something official from US F&W or all this may just be needless panic.

I really doubt that my contact with MDNR has is misquoting. He told me that his department had a long meeting last night, after the ruling from US Fish & Wildlife. He further told me that he had put a letter in snail mail to me, explaining this issue. As soon as I get this letter, I'll let you know. Until then, maybe we need to get ahold of US Fish & Wildlife? Any and all help is appreciated!

April 17, 2003

Man, I'm burnin' up these threads tonight!!!

I need more information on this and will check the outcome religiously.

Just with the little information I have at yet, seems major politics are involved or someone stepped on some big toes. What a shame, politicians with big feet....Sheesh!

April 17, 2003

YIKES!!!

Our state forest areas are managed by the DNR, aren't they? Hmmm, might have to re-think the multi-cache I was planning.

Funny thing though, according to the DNR I can plink and shoot wildlife in the same area I was planning on using for the multi-cache (as you can in many state forest areas). Another funny thing, the area I have in mind has been home to a trashed travel trailer for many years, and despite complaints to the DNR, it's never been moved. Caches are verbotten, trashed travel trailers are evidently OK.

Sandrich - not doubting or making light, just questioning the DNR's priorities. Thank you for taking time to try and further our hobby.

What's next? Hiking not allowed due to impact on fish & wildlife?

Usual Suspects - Terrapin & Bug

"Counting stars by candlelight, all are dim, but one is bright....."

April 17, 2003

Not that I doubt the word here but I think before I believe any of it I will have to see some proof of it from the ODNR. Funny though I was at a meeting tuesday night with a member of the ODNR there and nothing was said about this at all. Is it a well kept secret from the lower levels of the ODNR? Or are they supposed to keep it secret from us?

Maybe it is true but at this point I do not believe it is. I need real proof.

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sandrich:

quote:
How do you know that your source at MDNR didn't misunderstand something?
We need something official from US F&W or all this may just be needless panic.

I really doubt that my contact with MDNR has is misquoting. He told me that his department had a long meeting last night, after the ruling from US Fish & Wildlife. He further told me that he had put a letter in snail mail to me, explaining this issue. As soon as I get this letter, I'll let you know. Until then, maybe we need to get ahold of US Fish & Wildlife? Any and all help is appreciated!

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

Team Sandrich. Team Firefishe from T.C. here. I would like to know which office you contacted and the name of the person with whom you communicated.

State lands are managed by state agencies and mere funding sources from a federal agency are not, in my honest assessment, any valid reason for forbidding an activity like geocaching when activities such as hunting, fishing, hunting, backpacking, and mountain biking are permitted.

Granted, geocaching is the only activity that essentially means leaving something hidden in the woods--but this does not pertain to Wilderness Areas, anyway, where such things are off limits as a matter of design, anyway.

The bottom line is: we pay the taxes and the money from US F&W comes from us, as well as going to the DNR. What we need here is some Geocaching Diplomacy. Also, I would be loathe to say to this person from the DNR you talked with, just how many caches are already out there, considering how popular this sport has become. There are caches hidden all over the forests south of T.C., and I know those are DNR managed lands.

I think the US F&W is taking a bit of a moral high ground--if they are truly saying this to the Michigan DNR--by saying that geocaching doesn't fit their image of what they believe to be proper wildlife and forest management. It's our forest, too, and we have the right to be there, as long as we use it responsibly.

They are not the only game in town when it comes to forest management. The Bureau of Land Management might also give funds to state agencies in lands out west--like Colorado--where I used to live. This does not give any federal agency the right to strongarm the states--which have the right to govern themselves--into compliance with their objectives just because the states receive funding from them.

As to money, there are many private environmental charities that might work to provide for the desires of the land managers, their agencies, and geocachers. I will research this and get back to you.

Oh, yes...I would also like a link to the US F&W ruling on this. Please have the US F&W send any correspondence, if they wish, to me at:

thequantumfishe@chartermi.net or thequantumfishe@netscape.net

I will be happy to respond individually to this matter, as it affects me greatly. This pasttime has allowed me to get back outside. I truly believe that whomever told you this is not really in a position to make such decisions. I also think a letter to the Governor's office is also in order, on behalf of MiGO and the greater geocaching community.

Caches placed in 169 countries! That says a lot!

Regards,

Firefishe

Stephen Brown

Traverse City

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

April 17, 2003

You go firefishe!!! I like your comment!

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by opey one:
You go firefishe!!! I like your comment!

Thanks, opey_one. Nice to have the support! What I think we have here is Team Sandrich's source blowing ego-on-their-wind. And it's starting to stink (the source, not Team Sandrich hee).

Seriously...we need a lobbying front in the Michigan and US Congresses. Geocaching is becoming huge and must be represented if we are to keep it active.

Thanks for the support.

Warm regards,

Team Firefishe

Traverse City, Michigan

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

April 17, 2003

After reading this, I decided to do some research, and did a search for Geocaching on the US Fish and Wildlife site, and didnt get any hits, but on the Michigan DNR site, I did get a hit back...

QUESTION: What is the DNR's policy about using state lands for playing the new game of geocaching (www.geocaching.com)?

ANSWER: The DNR has no problem with individuals playing geocaching on State land, as long as the activity does not become an event with large numbers of players. An event would require a DNR permit and include permit fees. We are especially pleased with the Cache In, Trash Out policy advocated by the official web page www.geocaching.com.

You can read this at this Address: Michigan DNR Geocaching Stance

April 17, 2003

quote:
Nope. We have been building a good working relationship with the DNR here! This decision was out of thier hands. We anticipate continuing a good working relationship with the DNR.

But tell me Harrold, what have you personally done to get involved to further our sport?

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

I've got a hunch somebody is steering you astray. I seriously doubt the MI DNR is receiving it sole funding from the USFWS. If that is the case, it the only state who is.

I am employed by a similar agency in PA, so I kinda have some experience in how the feds interact with the states. For the most part...they don't.

We have recently developed very cacher friendly guidelines in PA. Check the Northeast forums for the whole story. Its easy to find the thread.

If the MI DNR has its own property...and I know it does, the USFWS cannot tell it what to do with it. Nor would they want to! I highly recommend you dig deeper and keep asking questions. Use our example in PA as a model. This can be a win-win deal.

e-mail me for more info, and good luck!

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:

quote:
Nope. We have been building a good working relationship with the DNR here! This decision was out of thier hands. We anticipate continuing a good working relationship with the DNR.

But tell me Harrold, what have you personally done to get involved to further our sport?

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

I've got a hunch somebody is steering you astray. I seriously doubt the MI DNR is receiving it sole funding from the USFWS. If that is the case, it the only state who is.

I am employed by a similar agency in PA, so I kinda have some experience in how the feds interact with the states. For the most part...they don't.

We have recently developed very cacher friendly guidelines in PA. Check the Northeast forums for the whole story. Its easy to find the thread.

If the MI DNR has its own property...and I know it does, the USFWS cannot tell it what to do with it. Nor would they want to! I highly recommend you dig deeper and keep asking questions. Use our example in PA as a model. This can be a win-win deal.

e-mail me for more info, and good luck!

Salvelinus

http://www.contrabandent.com/cwm/s/otn/animals/goldfish.gif

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

A most balanced answer. I support this kind of involvement wholeheartedly.

Warm regards,

Firefishe

Traverse City, Michigan

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

April 17, 2003

I would think the only funds the DNR gets from the US Fish and Wildlife service would be grants for certain projects.

5.3k · April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sandrich:
OK people, here's the long and the short of it. The US Fish & Wildlife Dept has ruled that Geocaching is not compatible with it's version of Wildlife Reclamation. Therefore, no Geocaching is allowed on ANY of it's land, or any lands that it funds! I am a member of the Steering Committee of the Michigan Geocaching Organization. I have been interfacing with the DNR of my state, for a few months, to have the DNR give Geocaching it's official approval. The DNR of this state (and many others) gets its funding from the US Fish & Wildlife Dept. Therefore, Geocaching is now ILLEGAL on any DNR managed land! So we have just lost in excess of 4 _million_ acres of land! That is just in the state of Michigan. How many acres has your state just lost? This is no laughing matter, as now it is a federal issue. Geocaching already lost the National Park Service, but this ruling has the very real possibility of hurting our sport far more. I don't yet have a link on this ruling, but it was a member of the DNR here in Michigan that called to inform me of this today.

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

My thought is, If you had never approched them they would not have made it an issue.

April 18, 2003

My info came from the guy who chairs the Committee on Commercial Purposes. He has snailed me a letter, and copy of ruling, as well as having phoned me. I didn't/don't want to cause any type of panic here, just a "heads up" to let people know that this has happened. Since he just sent it yesterday, I haven't recvd it yet. As soon as I do, I'll let you all know!

1.4k · April 18, 2003

Just a thought. I have picked up plenty of spent shotgun shells and rifle casings as well as tangled fishing line and bait containers when I have been out Caching. HMMMMMMMMMMMM

Maybe they should outlaw hunting and fishing too since many of those sportsmen and women leave refuse that is truly trash. I would hope that this would NOT be the case. Both hunting and fishing are vital and necessary sports.

April 18, 2003

The real problem here is that no snowmobile manufacturer makes GPS devices. If we could simply get Yamaha of SkiDoo to purchase Garmin or Magellan, then we would have the powerful snowmobile lobby on our side. That would enable us to hide GeoCaches in wilderness preserves that were the mating grounds of extremely endangered species, provided that we stipulated that these caches could only be hunted from snowmobiles.

Ok, so I'm just venting. I'm as perplexed by this as many of you.

3.1k · April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:
My thought is, If you had never approched them they would not have made it an issue.

You're misunderstanding. MiGO has been dealing with the Michigan DNR, and that relationship is going well. See Thallas' post above about what the Michigan DNR site says. Sandrich has an excellent reputation here for dealing with park authorities. Geocaching had been banned in Manistee National Forest here. Sandrich contacted them and we now have an excellent relation with the authorities there, along with a lot of caches.

The ruling in question comes from US F&W. More likely, it is the lack of contact with them, and the resulting lack of control they have, that has resulted in this.

You don't really think they wouldn't have heard about geocaching without a geocacher contacting them, do you?

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sandrich:
Late yesterday afternoon, in the state of Ohio, the US Fish and Wildlife Dept ruled that Geocaching is not compatible with it's mandates, and therefore disallowed on any of it's lands. Ideas on what we should do go here...

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

The key word here is "OHIO" I am from Ohio and the last word I got from the ODNR is that they do in fact support Geocaching. See this link

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=3316058331&m=4586055

April 18, 2003

Actually here is the info from that link.

I wanted to make sure to pass this along to everyone. This is the letter that Mr. Zody passed out to everyone at the meeting regarding the ODNR's stance on Geocaching.

Geo-Caching Tips for ODNR Properties

If you are considering establishing a cahce on prpoerty owned or managed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, (State Parks, State Forests, State Nature Preserves, State Wildlife Areas) please adhere to the following guidelines to avoid legal complications and/or prosecution:

1. ALWAYS consult the locak facility manager for permission BEFORE establishing a cache. Many are eager to help determine safe, scenic, and fun locations.

2. Traditional caches are NOT permitted on State Nature Preserves or Wildlife Areas - virtual caches only. Illegally placed caches will be removed.

3. If you do not know how to contact a local facility manager, please contact the following staff:

State Parks - Phil Hoffman - (614) 265-6561

State Forests - Don Karas - (614) 265-6694

State Nature Preserves - Don Demmy (614) 265-6453

State Wildlife Areas - Jennifer Windus - (614) 265-6330

In speaking with Mr. Zody, he made it clear that the ODNR views Geocaching as a great opportunity for both the public and the ODNR. They see it as people getting out and enjoying the parks that were given to us, while increasing visits to the parks, more specifically parks that sometimes don't get a lot of use. PLEASE PLEASE adhere to thses guidelines so that we can continue to keep this wonderful relationship and not lose this great opportunity to place and seek caches on ODNR property. Cool

April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
e-mail me for more info, and good luck!

Salvelinus

Just looked at your profile, no email addy? Pls email to addy listed on our profile, thx!

April 19, 2003

I'm still trying to figure out what this guy and the michigan DNR has to do with the ODNR. And why is he passing on bogus information? I happen to deal with the ODNR and nothing has been said about anything remotely similar, but actually what they have said is they in fact support Geocaching as long as permission is gotten and you keep caches from certain areas, but on the whole they in fact do support Geocaching.

April 19, 2003

Unless I'm missing something here, he's never said the OHIO Fish and Wildlife or MICHIGAN Fish and Wildlife ruled against Geocaching. These are STATE level agencies. What he said was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service met in Ohio. They could have had the meeting in Florida, Washington, or Mars, doesn't matter. It's where the USF&W (as in the Feds) had their meeting.

First point: We still don't know with any certainty if the USF&W has actually ruled against geocaching.

Second point: Unless for some strange reason the USF&W was given control over specific state agencies, it does not affect state policies.

Here in Mississippi, the Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries has jurisdiction over state property (i.e. County Lakes, State Parks, Wildlife Management Areas, etc.) USF&W has no say in what they do.

USFW does has control over NATIONAL property such as National Wildlife Refuges.

Case in point here in difference of policies: Noxubee Wildlife Refuge and Choctaw Wildlife Management Area are very close to each other. Heck, they may even be touching in spots. The Refuge prohibits camping. Period. The WMA says camp just about anywhere you want to - just try not to burn anything down.

And by the way, there is no truth to the rumor that because of budget cuts that the Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Mississippi Gaming (casinos) Commission have been merged. It was to be called "Fish and Chips".

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

April 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pater47:
Unless I'm missing something here, he's never said the OHIO Fish and Wildlife or MICHIGAN Fish and Wildlife ruled against Geocaching. These are STATE level agencies. What he said was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service met in Ohio. They could have had the meeting in Florida, Washington, or Mars, doesn't matter. It's where the USF&W (as in the Feds) had their meeting.

Good point, he (Sandrich) didn't mention ODNR, others did and I just added that into the original comment, so actually this may have no effect on the ODNR at all.

I stand corrected. thanks for pointing that out.

:&gt

April 20, 2003

Its true. The chairperson of the Michigan DNR's land management committee stopped by at our CITO event yesterday. He spoke with the MiGO steering committee for about an hour. He brought along a copy of the fax they received Wednesday from the US Fish & Wildlife service. Team Sandrich has a copy and I'll leave it up to him post the text but they ruled on a case in Ohio that geocaching does not fit in with their mandate for lands they manage.

In Michigan that means the State Game Areas, Wildlife Areas, and some rec areas. Most of these are in the lower third of the state. We are waiting for more details.

The ruling affects us in Michigan because our lands are co-managed, 25% of the money comes from the state and 75% from the feds. Money talks, guess who has the most say?

Your Ohio contact may not have heard about it because it just came out on Wednesday. We had just gotten a preliminary thumbs up the day before and this came as a total surprise to all of our state contacts. From looking at the USF&W site there is a considerable delay on news being posted. I can only assume that if they want their guidelines to be enforced they will have to make them known.

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 20, 2003

Rusty

Thanks for that update.

Sandrich

Sorry for coming on so strong, I was wrong and it looks like you were right from the beginning.

Now I have to make a few calls and see if I can find out if (or how much) this is going to affect us here in Ohio. May keep them busy removing hidden caches, and if that is the case may even post a few that really isn't there at all, that would keep them busy looking for a cache that was never hidden on their property.

Note: that does not mean I would do something like that but someone might.

;&gt

April 20, 2003

Our DNR contact said the ruling came out of Minnesota and I was just doing some surfing.

USF&WS Region 3 is based in MN and covers the Midwest. I found some Ohio rulings from last Monday but no mention of geocaching. That may be where it will show up. Check out the Financial Page to see why they have so much say. This may also only have regional implications and not be a national rule. Time will tell.

BTW..Pater47, I tried checking on the situation in Mississippi and you're right. The USF&W has a presence there but it doesn't look like your state has sold its soul to the feds like we have up here. Lucky you!

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 20, 2003

A very interesting discussion that I have been lurking on.

I noticed that there was some discussion about what funds the state wildlife agencys get from the FEDS. Many of you will already know the following, but this may help in some way. As I understand it, the FEDs have no choice but to distribute these funds. I read somewhere (will look for it) that the funds are distributed based on the number of hunting and fishing licenses sold in a particular state. It may be more complex than that, but that was at least a part of it.

For benefit of those that may argue the geocaching

position before politians and others I post the following information from this web page.

"It was sometime late in the last century that Americans began to realize wildlife in our vast land wasn't always just going to "be there." Elk, deer, beavers, bighorn sheep, wild turkeys, and

many other species had declined drastically; some species no longer could be found in areas where they had once been abundant. The need to manage game populations became painfully obvious.

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, known as Pittman-Robertson for the legislators who sponsored it, passed in 1937. It funnels an 11% federal user fee on hunting rifles, shotguns and ammunition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

which distributes it to the states. In 1970 a tax on handguns and archery equipment was added for wildlife management.

A similar arrangement provides funding for fisheries. The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, known as Dingell-Johnson (also named for the sponsoring members of Congress),

passed in 1950. It collects a 10% manufacturer's user fee on fishing equipment and tackle to enhance recreational fishing. In 1984, the Wallop-Breaux Amendment expanded this to cover all fishing tackle, new motorboat fuel taxes and duties on imported tackle and boats.

User fees collected from manufacturers are deposited in trust funds administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which then allocates the money to state fish and wildlife agencies. A maximum of 8% of the funds may be retained by the Service for administration. Together these two programs have pumped $4.65 billion into game restoration and management."

April 21, 2003

If what has been said is totally true, and all State and Federal lands are now off limits, then I think a serious consideration should be given to filing an injunction and a lawsuit. These lands are "our" lands too. There is no difference between hiking, and geo-caching; between bike riding and geo-caching, etc. ALL of us need to start writing our representatives and screaming bloody murder!!

Earth First!!! We'll cache the other planets later!!

April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Northern-Lights:
If what has been said is totally true, and all State and Federal lands are now off limits, then I think a serious consideration should be given to filing an injunction and a lawsuit. These lands are "our" lands too. There is no difference between hiking, and geo-caching; between bike riding and geo-caching, etc. ALL of us need to start writing our representatives and screaming bloody murder!!

No! it definetly does not make all State and Fed land off limits. One thing we did learn Saturday was that there are more departments that you can count on your hands and the decision of one has nothing to do with the others. In Michigan this ONLY effects State Game Areas and a few other specific spots that have yet to be clarified. It does not effect State Parks or Forests, those have separate management. We will be posting a Michigan announcement on MiGO as soon as we have a defined list of areas.

Shecacher is right on and those are the exact acts that were quoted to us as reason. The land is managed exclusively for hunting, fishing, and wildlife. They are the ones paying the bills so anything not inline with those activities is likely to be nixed.

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 21, 2003

I earlier posted:

I read somewhere (will look for it) that the funds are ....

From this web page I post the following.

"Each state's apportionment is determined by a formula which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount

of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source."

1.4k · April 21, 2003

That's some A+ research shecacher. The Pittman-Robertson fund are what is in question here.

According to what I heard from the DNR person on Saturday... because the lands that Rusty outlined are funded by these monies, it has been give a single use charter for the restoration of wildlife resources.

This means that activities like hiking, geocaching, mountain biking, kite flying, etc. are not acceptable uses of this land.

When we asked about hunting and why it was allowed he conceded that while hunting doesn't neccesarily fit the wildlife restoration charter... it was decided when the bill was written that since the hunters would be footing the bill through this invisible excise tax on guns, that huntin would be a permissible activity.

Come to find out, there was a law proposed several years ago to address this disparity. The law proposed adding this excise tax to ANY outdoor related equipment sales. This would be applied to things like, say... GPS units. If that had happened, this would likely not be an issue as we as a community would be contributing to the P-R funds. However at the time, though the bill had wide support from outdoor groups, breathing mention of a new tax was a Bad Thing and the bill died.

But that is exactly the names of the bills that we were told.

It came as a shock to all of us, and actually to our DNR contacts who were all set to move forward with a pro-caching standpoint until that communication.

The good news is, many DNR lands are not funded by this money and will remain open to us. But still, it was a dissapointing blow and was communicated as a federal decision.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

1.4k · April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:
My thought is, If you had never approched them they would not have made it an issue.

We approached them because it was communicated to us that geocaching would be banned on all DNR lands. What would you have done? Sit idly by?

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:
My thought is, If you had never approched them they would not have made it an issue.

We approached them because it was communicated to us that geocaching would be banned on all DNR lands. What would you have done? Sit idly by?

To take that one step further, we did not approach the USF&WS and look what happened. The people we approached were ready to work with us but had to yield to the federal decision.

We learned one lesson here. Make sure you know who actually has final authority for any land in question. Just because the word "State" is in the title doesn't mean they are the ones making all the decisions.

Their is still more research to be done on this decision. We don't know if there is any wiggle room or how far-reaching and inclusive the ruling is.

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 21, 2003

The long and short of it is that we now need to research, and do some more work. The good news for the state of MI is that this ruling affects approx 40,000 acres in the lower 1/3 of the lower peninsula of our state. The bad news is that approx 2/3 of our population lives there. Our DNR contact further indicated that he expects that this will be followed on a national basis, because it is Federal money. In other words, any and all land that is funded by a Pittman-Roberts Wildlife Restoration grant is now out of bounds. That ruling came from Bradley V. Johnson, Chief, Division of Federal Aid, Minneapolis, MN to Michael J. Budzik, Chief, Division of Wildlide, OH Department of Natural Resources, Columbus OH.

The letter rules that DOW managers will be spending time dealing with Geocaching, therefore jeopardizing the Pittman-Roberts grants (50 CFR 80.4) [Whatever 50 CFR 80.4 is, lol]. So that's why and where we stand for now. In MI we are going to continue to research, and work, to build good relationships with all the various land use agencies.

[This message was edited by Sandrich on April 21, 2003 at 09:33 AM.]

5.7k · April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:
This means that activities like hiking, geocaching, mountain biking, kite flying, etc. are not acceptable uses of this land.

This is the key statement here. I would have a problem if they were banning geocaching, but allowing hiking, but if hiking is not allowed, obviously geocaching isn't either. Maybe hunting related caches might work though. I've been meaning to make a duck decoy cache...

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

April 21, 2003

Others have already fought this battle and won. Granted they had some claim to hunting related activity.

From this

web page I post the following:

"Pittman-Robertson Grounds Field Trialing

A MAJOR VICTORY

On August 17, 2001, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) rescinded its Interim Guideline for Field Trials which, since its May 11, 2001 issuance, had threatened continued hunting dog owners use of Pittman-Robertson Act

sportsmen funded state game lands. This significant victory is due entirely to the cooperative efforts of hundreds of individual

hunting dog men, their state wildlife agencies and our supportive legislators. More hunting sympathetic Department of Interior and USFWS appointees will be place shortly, but such battles will be ongoing ones. The non-consumptive, anti-hunters and animal rightists inside and outside government remain active. As this and other similar issues come to the fore, we'll attempt to alert you. Thank you for your continued active support and understanding over the last 18 months.

Bob Kane

Pittman-Robertson Working Group Chairman"

NOTE: from the

archived web pages you can follow the battle this group fought. I would suggest if nothing else you look at this web page.

I think the Bush administration was a relief for this group, as they had been dealing with the Clinton kids. This fight was about state lands that recieved funds through the Pittman-Robertson

Act.

April 21, 2003

The webpage that Shecacher links above is excellent. This is not just an arbitrary law or ruling against geocaching, they are being very consistant with past history.

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:
This means that activities like hiking, geocaching, mountain biking, kite flying, etc. are not acceptable uses of this land.

This is the key statement here. I would have a problem if they were banning geocaching, but allowing hiking, but if hiking is not allowed, obviously geocaching isn't either. Maybe hunting related caches might work though. I've been meaning to make a duck decoy cache...

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

There is an irony in this. The State Game Area we were cleaning at our CITO event has the North Country Scenic Trail running almost the entire length of it. Somehow they got a varience to put that thru there.

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sandrich:
The letter rules that DOW managers will be spending time dealing with Geocaching, therefore jeopardizing the Pittman-Roberts grants (50 CFR 80.4) [Whatever 50 CFR 80.4 is, lol].

Federal Regulation 50 CFR 80.4, states that revenues from license fees paid by hunters

and fishermen shall not be diverted to purposes other than administration of the state fish

and wildlife agency. The regulation defines administration as only those functions required

to manage the fish and wildlife-oriented resources of the state.

quote:
Originally posted by Rusty:
There is an irony in this. The State Game Area we were cleaning at our CITO event has the North Country Scenic Trail running almost the entire length of it. Somehow they got a varience to put that thru there.

I would have to ask:

Did this area recieve any P-R Act funds?

If so, did the managers use any funds obtained from hunting and fishing license funds for this trail?

If they did use hunting and fishing license funds, it may be a diversion in violation of 50 CFR 80.4.

NOTE: CFR = The Code of Federal Regulations

April 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by shecacher:

quote:
Originally posted by Rusty:
There is an irony in this. The State Game Area we were cleaning at our CITO event has the North Country Scenic Trail running almost the entire length of it. Somehow they got a varience to put that thru there.

I would have to ask:

Did this area recieve any P-R Act funds?

If so, did the managers use any funds obtained from hunting and fishing license funds for this trail?

If they did use hunting and fishing license funds, it may be a diversion in violation of 50 CFR 80.4.

NOTE: CFR = The Code of Federal Regulations

I can say positively that this section receives P-R funds and the trail runs thru the center of it for about 3 miles. In answer to your other questions I don't know and I'm not sure how to find the answer. I think the National Park Service is the managing authority for the National Scenic Trails but I'm not sure. Does anyone else know?

Shecacher, I'm curious about your background? You seem to have a lot of expertise in this area and your comments are right on with everything we have been told. Do you work with this or are you just an excellent surfer?

--------------------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

US Fish and Wildlife rules against Geocaching

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment